INDRA DOLEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts to be noticed, the petitioner served as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Meshaki Tongani Mirigaon Branch Office in account with Sissiborgaon S.O. On 05.03.2010 a verification exercise was carried out by competent authority as regards the cash and stamp balance of the Branch Office and a sum of Rs. 1,53,904.00 was found short by the Inspecting Official. Under the relevant rules it was the duty of the Branch Post Master to maintain the Account Book of the Branch Office daily. On the date of the inspection it was found that cash balance was not maintained vis-a-vis the Account Book of the Branch Office. On 06.03.2010 the petitioner was placed under put off duty and was eventually charge- sheeted on 08.07.2010. The Articles of Charge and the Statement of imputation of misconduct in support of the Article of charge framed against the petitioner was with regard to the period from 07.04.1997 to 05.03.2010, during which time he committed shortage of cash of Rs. 1,53,904.00 and the shortage of cash was charged as UCP in the Branch Office Account on 05.03.2010. For violating the provisions of Rule 133 of the Rules for Branch Offices, it was alleged that by the said action the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, which was contrary to Rule 21 of the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter called 'the Rules, 2001'). Disciplinary proceeding was initiated by appointing an Enquiry Officer as required under Rule 10 of the Rules, 2001. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner admitted to the charge of having committed shortage of cash. The same was recorded in the Daily Order Sheet No. 1 dated 20.12.2010. The petitioner also made good the government loss of Rs. 1,53,904.00 on the very date of the issuance of the Charge Memo dated 08.07.2010 at the cost of his ancestral property. Enquiry Report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority on 28.02.2011, with copy to the petitioner. In the representation submitted on 18.04.2011, the petitioner admitted the charge framed against him.

(2.) On 10.05.2011 the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. Appeal preferred was also rejected by the Appellate Authority by Order dated 16.11.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 56 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench.

(3.) The said O.A. was dismissed vide Order dated 30.01.201 The Tribunal after considering the entire facts of the case found that the petitioner in his own handwriting admitted to his guilt of having committed shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 1,53,904.00, which he credited to the government exchequer. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that he was made to admit guilt under duress and coercion, the Tribunal found that there was no material/evidence placed in support thereof. Further, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any illegality or procedural irregularity and/or any material to show that the penalty was shockingly disproportionate, concluded that the action of the State Respondent was not arbitrary.